BA offloads couple at Portuguese military base over business class row [LGW-KIN]

Given we live in an age of smart phones with everyone becoming an instant journalist at a push of a button, not one image or video of the 'gentleman' being "ambushed" and "bound". Given how readily the AA and UA and any altercation on a train or bus gets filmed and posted these days I dare say there is a certain amount of 'over doing it' in terms of quotes the papers are using. No doubt in part at being so royally pee-d off at such a long delay. Yet still, nothing of any concrete evidence from a plane load of mobile devices. I for one am dubious. Having witnessed a few unsavoury 'events' on EK. All of which someone was filming, I am sure the Captain would only divert as a last option.

But let's see what comes out in the wash. I find it funny these events only ever happen when higher cabins are not full. Funny old thing that.

I can see why the word "ambushed" would be used, although I wouldn't use that word. Once the decision has been made to restrain a passenger, we are not going to tap him (or her) on the shoulder and say " excuse me sir, (or madam) do you mind holding your hands out so we can cuff you, thanks awfully".
It's not a decision taken lightly, we don't want it, look forward to it nor enjoy it, but there will be a plan formed and it has to be done quickly, and it will need a group of crew. It's quite a traumatic event for all.

P.S. Any passenger restrained in J would be moved back as we cannot secure the feet to the seat in front in J.

Last edited by flygirl68; Apr 28, 17 at 3:14 am
Reason: To add the P.S.

Anyone else concerned that the gentlemen in question reportedly has prostate cancer that he reports that his leg (note the singular) was swelling.

Cancer puts you at high risk of blood clots and I would be concerned by a unilateral swelling in this gentlemen. Yes prostate cancer, although being the most common cancer in men has one of the lowest rates of morbidity and mortality and therefore by itself doesn't really portray someone as frail.

Also, is anyone able to actually clarify the police position as there appears to be conflicting reports from 'the case is closed' to reports of 'will be interviewed in due course'.

Either way, I would hate to rush to any conclusion in this case, as tempting as others have found it, but hope that he gets checked out properly medically before being allowed back on a plane.

Speaking of Dr Dao, who led a master class and just settled (already!) for an "undisclosed sum"... I think we're going to be seeing more and more of this. For many people, the potential downside to such stunts is, in relative terms, fairly trivial.

I also predict we are going to see this kind of thing much more often.

In the light of recent "scandals", more and more people are going to try it on, knowing that if the airline takes any sanction against them whatsoever, some local hack is going to write a story painting the airline as the big bad wolf, and - poof! - six-figure settlement to shut your cake-hole.

Anyone else concerned that the gentlemen in question reportedly has prostate cancer that he reports that his leg (note the singular) was swelling.

Cancer puts you at high risk of blood clots and I would be concerned by a unilateral swelling in this gentlemen. Yes prostate cancer, although being the most common cancer in men has one of the lowest rates of morbidity and mortality and therefore by itself doesn't really portray someone as frail.

Also, is anyone able to actually clarify the police position as there appears to be conflicting reports from 'the case is closed' to todays reports of 'will be interviewed in due course'.

Either way, I would hate to rush to any conclusion in this case, as tempting as others have found it.

Indeed there seems little real evidence to back it all up. The gentleman doesn't appear to have been in the best of health, however that doesn't entitle a passenger to unilaterally decide to sit in business class.

Clearly in the captain's view the guy was a danger (or potential danger) to the safety of the aircraft such that a diversion and mass inconvenience was the only solution. The passenger on the other hand portrays himself as a 65 year old with cancer, diabetes and a leg that started swelling only an hour into a long haul flight. I have trouble reconciling the two things really.

In the light of recent "scandals", more and more people are going to try it on, knowing that if the airline takes any sanction against them whatsoever, some local hack is going to write a story painting the airline as the big bad wolf, and - poof! - six-figure settlement to shut your cake-hole.

I think that airlines and airline personnel will tread much more carefully. Of course, the Dao case will embolden some. Luckily for the airlines, the passenger is in most cases wrong. I doubt that many passengers will be in the same situation as Dao.

After the Dao incident, there have been a couple of passenger removals and nobody bat an eye because said passenger was violent, drunk or unruly.

Anyone else concerned that the gentlemen in question reportedly has prostate cancer that he reports that his leg (note the singular) was swelling.

Cancer puts you at high risk of blood clots and I would be concerned by a unilateral swelling in this gentlemen. Yes prostate cancer, although being the most common cancer in men has one of the lowest rates of morbidity and mortality and therefore by itself doesn't really portray someone as frail.

Also, is anyone able to actually clarify the police position as there appears to be conflicting reports from 'the case is closed' to reports of 'will be interviewed in due course'.

Either way, I would hate to rush to any conclusion in this case, as tempting as others have found it, but hope that he gets checked out properly medically before being allowed back on a plane.

If he did have cancer and was at risk of DVT then he should of either booked an extra leg room seat or stumped up the money for club. If he couldn't afford this then tough luck he shouldn't of flown. Well done to the crew for moving him.

The common theme of recent events appears to be CC on a power trip - pax better do as they are told or else. Not suggesting that was the case here (I don't have a clue); however, if a self-upgrader gets unruly after being told to head back, IF there is a choice between (a) an unscheduled landing, offloading said pax and then returning to the departure airport and (b) allowing the pax to stay up front and have him met by police upon arrival (so as to not incentivize others to try this), the choice seems obvious to me. Of course, events could have escalated beyond a point where (b) was an option, but my expectation of CC would be for them to never allow things to escalate to this point in the first place.

Again, not suggesting BA did anything wrong, but puzzled as to why BA don't put out their side of the story.

Whilst the discussion is concentrating on the elderly male who was offloaded, I am struggling to understand and justify (based on the information we have) on how the unconnected woman was also deemed to be a danger to the plane when she was not restrained and by some reports was objecting to the manner of the elderly male's restraint. To offload someone for having concerns about how an elderly passenger was restrained and to voice those concerns,instinctively feels somewhat heavy handed.

Some people might have done but it's entirely possible that they have not released it to the media.

If I happen to have recorded something that may be of significance to someone/investigation, the media is not where I'd submit the evidence to, for instance.

This is true indeed and a possibility however the kind of coverage this is getting, I'm sure that the media would could be very (financially) persuasive for an exclusive don't you think? We are talking potentially about hundreds of witnesses here. If you were on this flight you'd be paying attention.

I don't agree with self upgrading and there's an obvious problem if someone decides to do that once in the air. Yes there are going to be facts that I don't know about in this case but that still doesn't excuse self upgrading. What's next Do You Know What ISuffer From?

The crew are there for our safety and it isn't fair abuse them or not follow instructions.

I've been on a flight where there was a possibility we would have had to divert because of passengers behaving badly. Over 20 years ago I was on a charter flight where we had been waiting for at the charter terminal at LYS (Lyon) airport for about 8 hours as the plane was delayed coming in - can't remember the reason why. There was a rugby tour on the flight and they had opened the duty free at the airport and were passing round the spirits (Scotch from memory) a long time before we boarded. The food outlets had all shut by the time the plane landed so there wasn't anything they could eat either. So when boarding happens we are basically told to sit down (in the correct seats) ASAP so that we can take off quickly. This is because it is now past midnight and the crew will go out of hours if we don't.

Midway through the taxi to the runway one of the slimmer gentlemen from the rugby lot decides that he needs to visit the toilet and tries to stand up. He's stopped by the seatbelt that is very loosely fastened and a tannoy announcement reminds everyone to stay in their seats please. He decides to unbuckle his seatbelt He's very surprised when a member of the cabin crew sprinted down the aisle and pushed him forcefully back into his seat. She did up his seatbelt and said in a very schoolmistress tone that he wasn't to undo it again until the sign was off.

She only made it back to her jumpseat as we reached the start of the runway and I remember thinking that she was quite brave. They didn't serve any alcohol on the flight and the seatbelt sign was only off for a short while so people could visit the gents. Before it was (although we were at cruising altitude) four of the rugby team were up like a shot and then another two followed quickly after that. Crew had to ask them to return to their seats and wait which wasn't popular and one of them having sat down tried to stand up again. More schoolmistress talking was needed.

They were a real handful during the flight and I really thought that we were destined to divert or return to LYS. I was therefore very pleased when the captain announced that we had crossed the channel and would be making our descent.

Whilst the discussion is concentrating on the elderly male who was offloaded, I am struggling to understand and justify (based on the information we have) on how the unconnected woman was also deemed to be a danger to the plane when she was not restrained and by some reports was objecting to the manner of the elderly male's restraint. To offload someone for having concerns about how an elderly passenger was restrained and to voice those concerns,instinctively feels somewhat heavy handed.

As we don't have anywhere near the full facts, it is unsurprising that you/we are struggling to understand. I'd be wary of being suckered in by 'instant rage' headlines.

Someone mentioned with raised eyebrows that David Dao has settled (amount undisclosed) almost as if he has come out a winner here - UA stated they would be looking to settle immediately with the passengers & Mr Dao - which they have done. The fact this has happened so quickly should not reflect on Mr Dao at all.